GoodEnoughForMe's Blog

This is a rehash of sorts, but I have now rewatched FLCL two and a half times in the last couple months, and it has gone from near favorite to definite favorite. I have an actual legitimate blog entry in the works, don't worry. But for now, here's an older writeup.

What strikes me about FLCL is that it is both the farthest anime from literature possible and one of the closest.

Some of the visuals, like when Naota is shot out of Canti as a white hot bullet, and uncurls and cools off into his human form, just can't be done anywhere outside of animation. Ditto with a lot of the crazy facial expressions and the like. Same with the auditory facets.

But on the flip-side, it is rife with foreshadowing, motiff, symbolism, and satire. Enough to make you think it started as a book in some crazy corner of the galaxy.

I actually think FLCL succeeds in being one of the most thought provoking works of all time, in the anime world; a zany, postmodern, superflat work that encourages a discussion of it's recurring symbolism and social criticism. It's almost too much, in some respects, with even little details like right-handed or left-handed coming into play (left-handers being controlled by the 'creative' right hemisphere on the brain, and right handers by the more analytical right hemisphere). Naota lacking a mother makes him search for a sort of hybrid mother/lover (have to slip in some song lyrics) from all the girls he meets. The "relationship" with him and his brother is excellent; not once do we ever truly see his brother, but we understand perfectly what Naota is going through in his seemingly conflicting idolization and frustration with his older siblings' successes. Because of all of this, Naota tries very hard to be an adult by the way he acts and even the food he eats culminating symbolically in the phallus shaped bump protruding from his forehead, growing bigger as the OVA carries on. Naota's thus liminal state is abused by the sexual advances of Mamimi, who is looking for sexual output in the absence of her boyfriend, Naota's older brother. Mamimi is referred to as a "native girl" and serves as a critique of traditional Japanese sexualization and culture, in contrast to Naota's liminal state encompassing both Japan, and an increasingly American influence by way of his brother. Notice the baseball bat he always carries around that serves as both a reminder of Naota's brother and American cultural imports.

Haruko is completely alien to the the "Japanese" flavor of the other characters, not just in looks (her eyes and hair), but in the Italian Vespa scoote and the imported bass she wields. Naota is now caught between the influence of Japan; Mamimi, and foreign culture (mostly American and other western values) in Haruko. Interestingly, Haruko's randomness and seemingly overreaching assertions of control is portrayed mostly positively by way of Naota, who becomes increasingly infatuated with her (i.e., American/western culture). Haruko's supervision of Naota can be seen as a metaphor for American led reconstruction in post World War II Japan.

Ninamori provides the catalyst for Naota's ultimate choice between American and western culture in Haruko, and (arguably) traditional Japanese aristocracy and classism by way of the positive portrayal of Ninamori's upper class standing.

There's a lot of other symbolism; notice that when Naota discusses his older brother and airplane is always shown flying overhead, symbolizing his departure from Japan, and tying into the everpresent American ethos. Obviously, the vast sexual symbolism (Naota's horn, which isn't so subtle) are going to be hit and miss for people, but I think the creators of FLCL did a good job, mostly, of making these meaningful as opposed to simply trying to sell sex. While at times it seems to be too heavy-handed or too frequent, I think it largely contributes to the show positively. Same with the self-referential nature of some of the fourth-wall breaking moments, which most works of any medium flounder badly with when attempted.

The parody elements also tend to be hit-and-miss with people. I think the bullet time effects are ok in their exaggeration, although in a world now inundated with bullet time parodies and jokes, it loses some of it's appeal that it had a decade ago. The Revolutionary Girl Utena references/parodies (notice that the "weapons" in each show are pulled form someone's body) are interesting if ultimately fairly simplistic. I think the South Park moment is pretty funny, myself.

Yes, this is all wrapped around a, what I think to be, successful coming-of-age story; Naota being a mostly everyday kind of kid growing up in not so everyday circumstances, but still grappling with the same issues that many of us will grapple with. Perhaps, at times, FLCL is too crammed and kinetic to make sense of everything it's trying to say, but I still maintain that it is incredibly important and largely very successful 21st century anime work.

Part 1: Introduction, and Examination of Basic Confucius Thought and Influence

Section 1: An Introduction

It is perhaps not surprising that, as China becomes an increasingly visible global power, many in the west are viewing it's rise with fear and apprehension. This is perhaps because, unlike, say, the UK and the US, and even Germany, which share common ethical and political ancestry, China is very different. From a cultural, religious, and political perspective, it's norms and mores have been established without overwhelming influence from the likes of ancient Greece and Rome, and the religious practices tend to be more entwined with each other and esoteric, to an extent. America, and the west, in their cultural exportation, has influenced this in recent decades, but Chinese philosophy still has numerous stances and thoughts of incommensurability with common western philosophy. In this essay, these differences will be explored, as well as similarities, and the religious and cultural roots of China will be examined, as we look into the Far East nation that is poised to be the world's largest economic power within our lifetimes.

The depth and breadth of comparative philosophy between China and the west is increasing in recent times, as the two global political spheres clash and combine. There are many different thoughts that attempt to reconcile the two major ethical fundamentals of each sphere, and there are also many who prescribe to a sort of radical incommensurability; that is, the philosophical inquiries, answers, and statements, are too different in one tradition as to have meaninglessness with regards to the other. A case of, to put it simply, apples to oranges. Some take the stance of more moderate incommensurability; a case of both understanding and incompatibility. There are even some who believe that the common roots between both Chinese and western philosophy are similar, often based upon the precept that we are all living, afterall, in the same world.

Any discussion of Chinese ethics and philosophy must include the major religious and/or belief systems of both the nation of China and those with Chinese ancestry. These include Buddhism (of the Mahayana school), Taoism, Confucianism, Ancestor Worship, and Chinese Folk Religious beliefs. Some of these have influenced politics and daily life more than others.

Religion in China, like most countries, has a complicated history. The communist revolution and rise to power in 1949 established a government that, much like Stalin before it, manhandled religion out of daily life, creating a militantly secular state. The remnants of this remain to this day, with approximately 40-60 percent of the Chinese population claiming to be agnostic, atheist, or non-religious. Of the remaining population, traditional Chinese folk religious beliefs and Buddhism happen to be the most common religious inclinations, but like many East Asian countries, these beliefs mix and encompass both each other, and other belief systems and religions, most notably the aforementioned Taoism and Confucianism.

Section 2: Introduction to Confucianism and it's Role in Chinese Society

Traditional Chinese ethics, which have seeped into modern times, focus on the cultivation of a worthwhile life, responsibility to family, particularly parents, as compared to strangers, if humans are naturally good or evil, the necessary participation in attempting to reform and cultivate socio-political structure, and proper actions when in a position of power.

Filial piety; a respect for parents and ancestors, is one of the most valued mores of Chinese ethics. In Confucianism, it is a virtue to be held above all the others. In The Analects, Confucius says that "uprightness lies in fathers and sons covering up for each other." In many ways, it is almost a reverse nepotism; nepotism being a human universal. This respect towards parents is often extended, partially, to larger manifestations. In many ways, although not to the extent of family, the state is seen as a parental unit. More on this, in part, later.

Also at the center of Confucianism is the idea of compassion, and loving others. “Simple in manner and slow of speech,” was seen as a positive. Even self-deprecation could be seen as necessary in order to avoid bragging or self-idolization. However, perhaps Confucianism is most famous for the Golden Rule; “what you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others."

Other Confucian virtues include the promotion of traditionalist conduct, and the ability to make judgment calls that result in determining what is the "right" course of action. With this in mind, center to Confucian thought is the idea that all people have the ability to cultivate themselves correctly, and be "good" people. However, Confucian thought has often been utilized by the state in contrasting ways with it's values, with numerous Chinese governments wielding it as a state religion demanding legitimism and submission to authority, by way of the Confucian emphasis on meritocracy. This stands in contrast, however, to an idea central to Confucianism that essentially states that good governance is done by example, and by first governing oneself. This is similar to the Taoist "wu wei" aptly described as; "the less the king does, the more gets done." This strange contradiction seems to have been excused by many academics and politicians, perhaps because of fear of punishment from the state at large.

As stated, central to Confucian thought is the belief that all people can become a person of, essentially, perfect morality and virtue. Where Confucian thought differs from Aristotelian thought is in how this is done. While Aristotle did espouse cultivation of character being in part a result of habituation, Confucius placed a supreme importance on ritual and expressing already established cultural norms in a way to show respect, something Aristotle did not do. “A man who is not Good—what has he to do with ritual?” says Analects 3.3. This central tenant has perhaps fanned the flames of a large Confucian resurgence in modern China, with mainstream essays and articles offering support in making Confucianism a state religion; a far cry from mere decades ago, when the idea of a state religion was not only alien, but categorizing Confucianism as a religion was contentious enough.

This assumption of all men being capable of perfect morality is perhaps used presumptuously in support of rulers. If; then. They have the capability to rule, we must respect their senior status, thus, their rule is legit.

With regards to ritual, Confucian thought, perhaps contentiously, holds that ethically significant and morally positive forms of respect are often taught to us through cultural norms and behavior, thus providing reason to respect traditional societal norms via ritual. Whether this is a correct belief is, of course, debatable. For example, children are (presumably) taught to answer questions, perform greetings and farewells, by both parents and the society around them. This manifests itself as a sort of support for the communitarian thought that we group more heavily with East Asian societies. This behavior is seen as almost aesthetically pleasing; that is, a community working perfectly together and harmoniously through established modes of respect and virtue is almost a "dance." Infact, while generalizations are to be avoided, there is a sense of communal conformism - not consumerist conformism - that permeates Chinese society. Perhaps this is an effect of the proclaimed "communist" government, but the rugged individualism that is so valued in the west tends to be less important in China, and other nearby countries. This can be argued to have been a result of the various religious and philosophical thought espoused by fundamental Chinese belief systems, particularly Confucianism.

This dichotomy is espoused in other ways. Confucian ethics places importance on inter-personal relationships and development, as opposed to individual autonomy. That is not to say that Confucian ethics absolves us of individual autonomy, just that it is seen as a sort of living in a way that one sees as "right," in contrast to rabid self-interest, even at the expense of others, we see espoused by the free market frontiersmen in the western world.

The Analects do place value, however, on doing what is right even if it is unrecognized or praised by others, or conventionally disapproved. Remember; we all have the ability to be "right," afterall. That said, Confucian ethics are generally regarded as rejecting the idea that there are infinite ways to live. There is a "right" way. However, Confucius adamantly opposed heavy state influence and legally backed and presented morality, instead proposing that example is the best way to lead, and that people must be allowed to make mistakes in order to learn the right way.

Confucian ethics is seen also as de-emphasizing personal gain at the expense of a group. However, this is not to say that individual gain is to be subjugated by the community; rather, we are lead to believe that there is a relationship between the individual and community, and that "good" for one is not always good for the other, whereas we should strive to do good for both. An individual's interests often rely on a group, and a group's interests often rely on each individual of the group. This idea of group and individual interests having a symbiotic relationship is relatively distinct from western thought, which separates the two frequently.

In the political realm, Confucius emphasized shame over punishment, believing that pervasive punishment would lead to attempts to escape it. Confucius believed that virtuous rulers were just that; virtuous, and said virtue would help to cultivate civility and positive ethical behavior from the populace at large.

Confucius also was known for his emphasis on education. His rebuke of intuition - "gut feelings" -- as opposed to study, seems ahead of it's time. It should be noted, however, that Confucius saw study as a sort of emulation of a teacher who, essentially, knew what he or she was doing, and was familiar with all important ritual. Morality was seen as the ultimate teaching to be had, and Confucius was willing to teach anyone, no matter class standing, as long as they were eager to learn.

Mencius, a later Confucian scholar and the most revered after Confucius himself, further established the idea that human nature is inherently good. However, whether this is fulfilled by everyone is a matter of their exercise in virtue, like ritual. Mencius also empathized compassion and empathy, while simultaneously admitting to rulers having certain "mandates" to rule by way of the virtue. This seemed to suggest a slightly more supportive ideal of the state and rulers, as opposed to Confucius, who grew up a bit of a political cynic with regards to the system at the time.

Mencius also firmly supported being steadfast, and accepting, essentially, what life throws at you, without dwelling on what is out of a person's control. In effect, one should not relax proper moral cultivation in an effort to change what can not be changed.

Even though Mencius thought humans were good, essentially, he believed that not everyone had the proper predispositions. Like Confucius before him, Mencius emphasized ideals like reverence, filial piety, and correct morality. Mencius also established that example is the best form of governance, but further stated that societal order takes it's roots in familial relationships. Allegiance, in turn, is a result of the support of the individuals and the families they make up. Mencius also emphasized the idea of avoiding shame. He established that shame, or disgrace, was not just a reflection of social standards, but of ethical ones. He also established the importance of certain behavioral necessities; respect for elders, humility in groups, while still allowing for emergency changes.

The final prominent Confucian scholar we will examine is Xunzi, seen as a bit of a "rival" to Mencius in many circles dueo to his contrasting opinions. While his influence is not as accepted or widespread, he still is one of the most well known Confucian figures.

Like others before him, Xunzi placed supreme importance on ritual, and also duty. However, he also espoused a much more hierarchal view of society, in that people had their roles, and they should stick to them. These roles were traditionalist duties and rites, to avoid immoral desire, and would have to be overseen by those of higher educational and social standing. A sort of meritocratic oligarchy, in effect. He believed that a strong state could limit the harmful desires of the populace. There is a bit of a coincidental relationship with Buddhism and Xunzi, knowing that. Xunzi believed that desire lead to much of the ills of society, much like Buddhism holds that desire leads to suffering. His staunch belief in removing unkempt and immoral desire drove much of his personal morality. This idea of a stronger state is perhaps more influential than some give him credit for, considering past Chinese political systems, and even the current one.

Some of Xunzi's biggest detractors were Taoists, who had a much more free flowing view of morality, and perceived it as more spontaneous and not necessarily some firm, artificial human construct. Their political differences were varied; some Taoists were supporters of a strong state, others of near anarchy. This complex response contrasted with Xunzi's essentially "one size fits all" view. Infact, the Taoist's, along with many earlier Chinese academics, placed action in the realm of spontaneous thought as opposed to direct reasoning that was more common in western philosophy. Xuzin was a bit of a Chinese outlier, in this regard.

Xunzi believed that tradition established modes of behavior, and that these modes, if established, would help create social order. Xunzi seemed to value social structure and order more than previous Confucianism scholars. The elite class that would rule over the workers would do so because they knew how to apply the workers creations and work. This stands in stark, stark contrast to later Maoist and communist thought that valued the proletariat, at least in theory, and that became the predominant political establishment of China through much of the 20th century. Whether that theory was actually practiced or not is highly debatable.

One of Xunzi's most controversial stances is his outright rejection of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." Xunzi believed that military strategy and technique were not the most important facets to achieving victory, but was instead winning over the people in support of the war. While this belief may have seemed strange and absurd in pre-mass media centuries, many nowadays would contend that his conclusion is spot on, citing media coverage and ensuing population exhaustion in conflicts like the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

Like many Confucian scholars, Xunzi placed extreme emphasis on learning and never ceasing to learn throughout one's lifetime. He emphasized the requirements of long work and dedication in reaping the rewards of education. Xunzi was a bit more pessimistic with regards to human nature; establishing his idea that not only were humans not inherently good, but that human nature was a barrier to positive cultivation. However, he did attest to the belief that humans could, through hard work, achieve the sort of moral perfection envisioned by Confucius.

Xunzi's reflections on punishment are much more intune to the current Chinese government's stance, noting that China executes more people, for example, than the rest of the world combined. The importance Xunzi placed on punishment separated him from his peers, and he advocated severe punishment to keep people in line. This idea has perhaps influenced criminal punishment in modern China.

Xunzi's meritocratic view extended to both society and the individual, in that goodness or badness was not something to be "born" with, but instead resulted in one's output.

Much like other Chinese thinkers, Xunzi viewed normative arguments largely as fruitless, and tended to avoid them when possible. This ties in with the sort of communal conformity touched on earlier, executed by avoiding potential conflict.

Of the three major religions in China; Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, it is easily assumed that Confucianism has had the most profound political influence. Even though surveys demonstrate that more Chinese consider themselves Buddhist, the fact that Confucianism has largely been accepted by intellectuals, and that it originated in China, perhaps explains it's large influence on Chinese thought through the centuries, and it's apparent renaissance in current times.



Thank you for reading part 1 of my essay on Chinese ethics and their formation through the major Chinese religions, and comparing Chinese ethics and philosophy with western ethics and philosophy. The following is a brief list of the next parts I hope to write:

Rudimentary outline:

Part 2: Examining Basic Taoist Thought and Influence
Part 3: Examining Basic Buddhist Thought and Influence
Part 4: The Metaphysics of Chinese Religions and their Effect on Chinese Society: Theism and Afterlife
Part 5: Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and the West, and Revisiting the Differences Between Major Chinese thought and Western Thought .

I recently found myself lurking on a forum that contains a fairly prominent Young Earth Creationist member. Before you snicker, this guy is a decent person. He just appears to be under a misconstrued opinion of both The Bible and Christianity at large. And he wants morality to be based on The Bible entirely. But I digress...

This got me thinking on why YEC and Bible literalism is such a prominent minority (and perhaps majority in some areas) in America, while I will explore, briefly, how it is in direct conflict with the true intent of The Bible and Christianity. This will deal quite a bit with Christian theology, as a heads-up, and it should be noted that I do not believe in God or any higher being. With that out of the way, let us begin.

Biblical literalism has it's roots in an evangelical hermeneutical approach to Scripture and Protestant fundamentalism, and often results in people taking Creationism, Noah's Ark, etc., as actual, literal truth. The only case that allegory or metaphor is being used in The Bible is when it is explicitly stated, according to most literalists. I am going to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that goes against The Deluge or Creationism, because most literalists don't accept that in the first place, and instead view this from a theological standpoint.

Literalism shares a bit of common ground with the "pick and choosers" as some people call them; people who pick and choose passages from The Bible to support their worldview, while ignoring others. The most mainstream application of this, perhaps, is in the diminished role that The Old Testament has in modern Christianity, to the point where many Christian theologists and Christian laymen make little apologies and simply say it is not reflective of true Christianity. However, like Literalism, we often see certain allegory still constrained to the belief that it is not allegory.

To cut to the chase; the act of picking and choosing, or in computer terms, cutting and pasting passages from The Bible is inherently lopsided. Christianity was never supposed to be represented in that way. Christianity was never founded under the pretense that the Bible is a source of infallible knowledge, or scientific knowledge. What it is supposed to represent is reason, and said reason can be based, when accurate, on scientifc knowledge. Look at the opening verses of John's Gospel; Logos/Jesus. He is the Word. Logos is a Greek term meaning reason. Thus, Reason made the world, and the world was made through Reason. Therefore, the world is inherently rational. As Logos also is a part of all humans, humans are also inherently rational (that is an entirely different can of beans).

The idea of reason/rationality being a fundamental part of Christianity was espoused by the likes of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. The Trinity itself was developed through assumed "rational" meditation, and goold ol' fashioned debate.

This idea continued well into the 4th and 5th century by the likes of Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine of Hippo, among others. The understanding of Christianity was drawn from secular information at the time. The idea that God is rational and humans are rational led them to use morality implored by modern, secular reasoning. There is no contradiction between what Christianity showed and what human reason showed. And while at times many theologians thought that the latter needed to be corrected by the former, there was no inherent conflict between recognizing both of them as integral to Christian morality and knowledge.

So, in effect, Protestant fundamentalism and YECers are directly opposed to what Christianity was originally supposed to be about. They essentially deny that Christianity is reasonable, by allowing interpretation that directly goes against all reasonably and rationally developed evidence and consensus. It leads us to believe that they are saying that all scientific consensus is not just wrong; but fallicious, and deceitful. It pits religion against the reason it was originally founded to represent. They are, ultimately, saying what many atheists and agonstics have been saying for years; that religion is unreasonable, without really knowing that that is what they are portraying. They are pitting their religion against the world.

True Christianity was never about following the Bible in all cases all the time. So what if Paul thought creationism was true? We now have the information that shows that it isn't; he did not. Why do literalists cherry pick that bit of information, but casually dispose of the fact that Paul also probably thought that the sun revolves around the Earth? Very few people are willing to argue against the Earth actually rotating around the sun, so why is creationism still such an issue? If Paul had ostensibly said that the Sun revolves around the Earth, would modern Christians take that at it's word? Probably not (well, not most of them, at least). So then why still take creationism so literally?

Actual Christianity is about incorporating many facets of knowledge, not just the literal word of The Bible. YECers and Protestant fundamentalists are bastardizing the religion, essentially. This is why, just like modern scientists ignore YEC claims, so to do Christian theologists. It is, quite simply, not a legitimate interpretation of Christianity as it was set out to be.

Perhaps ironically, these Protestant fundamentalists share more in common with Muslims than other Chrstians, because Muslim theology is built on the fact that the Koran is an unfallible source of knowledge that contains God's direct teachings to man, and that the Koran has everything we need to know; we just need to learn to interpret it. This is not a very different world view from Protestant fundamentalists.

This is an older write-up of mine, and one that could be incredibly much more detailed and longer, not to mention refined, as I have read more on this subject. But what the hell...


Often times we struggle with the idea of art; be it literature, cinema, music, a painting, as being quantifiably "good." In our debates surrounding the like, we often times fall back on the line "it's all subjective."

This is only partially true.

Immanuel Kant is generally regarded in high esteem by analytic philosophers, and he made several statements equatable to judging the quality of art (I linked his Wiki page, but it should be noted that Wikiepdia is pretty bad for philosophy, I simply wanted to create a way to see who he was quickly).

When we say art is "good," we are often oversimplifying what makes it good. We have to break down art into, in my opinion, two major facets; the aesthetic and moral. Kant himself named four "reflective judgements" in his Critique of Judgment, the agreeable, the beautiful, the sublime, and the good.

Saying that "this chair is comfortable" is an aesthetic judgement. There is no moral substance. Someone might say "that chair is not comfortable." As an aesthetic judgement, there is no objectivity; what is comfortable to one person may not be to the other, and all the same, it has no effect on someone being more moral or ethical. Saying "this chair is comfortable" doesn't make you a "better" person, so to speak, than someone who says the chair isn't.

In this regard, aesthetic judgements are always subjective. Let me quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

1. The Judgment of Taste

What is a judgment of taste? Kant isolated two fundamental necessary conditions for a judgment to be a judgment of taste — subjectivity and universality (Kant 1928). Other conditions may also contribute to what it is to be a judgment of taste, but they are consequential on, or predicated on, the two fundamental conditions. In this respect Kant was following the lead of Hume and other writers in the British sentimentalist tradition (Hume 1985).

1.1 Subjectivity

The first necessary condition of a judgment of taste is that it is essentially subjective. What this means is that the judgment of taste is based on a feeling of pleasure or displeasure. It is this that distinguishes a judgment of taste from an empirical judgment. Central examples of judgments of taste are judgments of beauty and ugliness. (Judgments of taste can be about art or nature.)

This subjectivist thesis would be over strict if it were interpreted in an ‘atomistic’ fashion, so that some subjective response corresponds to every judgment of taste, and vice versa. Sometimes one makes a judgment of taste on inductive grounds or on the basis of authority. A more holistic picture of the relation between response and judgment preserves the spirit of the subjectivist doctrine while fitting our actual lives more accurately. The subjectivist doctrine needs to be refined in order to deal with the cases of induction and authority. But it must not be abandoned. The doctrine is basically right.

Whether or not you find a painting beautiful or a song moving is subjective. This is a Judgement of Taste.

But often times there is more to art than simply looking beautiful. Some of the most well-regarded works of literature are regarded as such because of a layer of intellectual depth and inquiry that causes us to think, or brings about new revelations. This is the moral aspect of art. Immaneual Kant had this as one of his four reflective judgements; he called it "the good" and regarded it as a judgement if something is ethical or not.

If we assume that most modern philosophers are correct in that there are certain moral absolutes, then there is a way for a piece of art to be moral or immoral. A film espousing the belief that killing children wholesale is a good idea can be considered a immoral/unethical film. On the other hand, a piece of art espousing a belief in personal freedom can be considered a moral/ethical film. In this regard, I believe that there are qualities that can make art "good," but these can be entirely seperate from how much someone enjoys that art.

For instance, I enjoy the first Pirates of the Caribbean film. It's not a super favorite of mine, but I've seen it half a dozen times and enjoyed it a lot each time. In this regard, I find the film "nice" from a Judgement of Taste. However, in looking into whether or not the film is good, morally and/or ethically, I find that there is little to go on. The movie doesn't contain any intellectual discussion or inquiry. Because of this, if Bob Barker told me tomorrow that the movie is a bad movie, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I might argue that Depp did a good job acting, but even that is mostly a Judgement of Taste, and as such, a subjective aesthetic judgement.

In another example, if someone told me that "Zombie Lesbians" is a better piece of art than "Blade Runner" I would staunchly disagree. Blade Runner is a morally positive film, one that explores areas such as environmentalism and what makes us human (a gross oversimplification, but it will do). If they said they enjoyed "Zombie Lesbians" more, that is fine, but I don't think that they can quantifiably say that it is better art, as there is little to no moral or ethical value in a movie about lesbian zombies. Nobody should ever tell someone they can't enjoy, say, Transformers, but I will say I wish we had better movies.

For that, I say there are two major parts of art. The aesthetic (subjective) and the moral (objective). Kant spoke of two more reflective judgments, "the beautiful" and "the sublime" and I find them interesting. They essentially occupy a space between the moral and the aesthetic. Kant called them "subjective universal" judgments. I find them to be a perhaps important part of art too. They are not tied to absolutes, but are made with the belief that other people should agree with them. An example would be a good acting job. Generally a Judgement of Taste at first glance, but events like the Academy Awards attempt to quantify acting a bit. This may also be important; as it is what separates a two minute film that simply says "freedom is cool" from a moving, well-scripted feature length film describing the same thing in a more "mature" way. However, because of the inherently subjective quality to this, it is hard to form a standard of "good art" simply on the beautiful and the sublime.

So I've kind of known this for a long time, but:

There isn't a single facet of my body that is not ugly.

There isn't a single facet of my personality that is not repulsive.

In other words, I AM BATTING 1.000!

That's pretty good! I don't think anyone has EVER done that before! I mean, even someone found Hitler attractive! I AM OUT UGLYING HITLER.

Like a baus.

(Contains heavy spoilers for Cowboy Bebop Sessions 23 and 24)

I was bored Saturday night/Sunday morning, and found myself tuning into the Adult Swim anime block. I'm not really a fan - they show the same thing over and over - but it's a decent way to pass the time when compared to my usual sit-still-with-a-glossy-look-over-my-eyes-then-fall-asleep routine.

Part of the reason that I tuned in was because the 4th and 3rd to last Cowboy Bebop episodes were on. I have long maintained that the last four episodes of Bebop might just be the best seqeuntial four episodes of any anime I have yet seen. The only one that may contest that is the wonderful work "Kuuchuu Buranko." But after seeing episodes 23 and 24 of Bebop, for what has to be at least the 6th time, I am inclined to say that it just doesn't get any better, and might never.

One of the first things I find interesting about both these episodes is that, on a show often predicated on action, these two episodes are almost entirely action free. Episode 23, for all intents and purposes, is.

For those who need a quick brain jog; episode 23 - or should I say Session 23 - is Brain Scratch. Let me begin by posting the opening dialogue, a statement by one Dr. Londes.

"What is a physical body? The body is merely an object. It is an existence all too impure to store the gods within us called souls. Now you will remember. The blood stained history! Material desire. Hunger. Sexual drive. Desire to dominate. Desire for fame. As long as there is a body, desires will be born. As long as there is desire, human ego will not disappear. Humans will continue to fight to fulfill their bodies' desires, and it will never end. At this rate, there is no future! Now awaken your soul! Now be rid of that filthy body!"

Cowboy Bebop is a lot of things; classy, sleek, well-produced. But it is rarely anything more than a really, really well-done space western. Brain Scratch changes all of that, for at least one 24 minute segment.

Dr. Londes is modelled in part after Marshall Applewhite, the, for lack of better ways to describe him, batshit crazy founder and leader of the Heaven's Gate cult that led to the mass suicide of 39 people in 1997.

I don't want to paint a black and white picture here, and neither does Cowboy Bebop. Dr. Londes, in this session, is the leader of a religious cult that seeks to essentially "digitize" the human brain as data and upload it to the internet, allowing the human soul to exist forever, free of the confines of the human body. He is not exactly a role model. But while Marshall Applewhite is totally batshit crazy, Londes has moments where you can sympathize... almost. Maybe.

Being a Japanese animation, and considering the influence Buddhism has had on Japanese society, it's easy to see some carry over. Notice the reference to "human ego" in the opening statement by Londes. Portraying desire as flaws. While the latter is not exclusively Buddhist, the idea of an unchanging ego mostly is. Buddhism holds that an unchanging ego (Ātman) is a direct result of ignorance. Ignorance is, in turn, the source of suffering. An enlightened person, one who's ego or self is highly developed, is no longer at the mercy of desire.

And yet, there is also something deeply humanist about the SCRATCH cult Londes founds. Mortality is something we all have to face at some point, and the idea of transcending it is incredibly appealing to many, many people.

In this day and age, it's also easy to seen some comparisons to Scientology; the aggressive recruiting, the steps taken to be admitted, etc. But I don't think that SCRATCH is as crude or criminal. To an extent. When Dr. Londes is asked about why so many members of SCRATCH are committing suicide, he falls back on the argument that he is not forcing anyone to do anything. And he isn't. But it doesn't take a PhD to recognize the persuasive power of religion on people (later on, we do learn that he has essentially murdered people in an unrelated case, which basically casts any sympathy for him aside).

This is a wonderful episode though, and the technology aspect is great too. The "brain uploading" I alluded to earlier is done through, of all things, a brand new virtual reality gaming system. But this is one that directly "taps" into your brain; you are in the game, your thoughts control it.

The mix of internet recruiting, video games, and savvy marketing of SCRATCH portrayed by Cowboy Bebop seems way ahead of its time, considering the show is a 20th century production.

Londes is also a bit of an odd-one... well, duh. But his SCRATCH group has a couple statements on various religious beliefs:

"What lies beyond that [death]? Heaven? Hell? Reincarnation? Such things cannot possibly exist. Those are mere excuses..."

"Why do you think people believe in God? It's because they want to. It's not easy living in this rotten world. There is nothing certain while living on in this world. Do you get it? God didn't create humans. Humans created God."

Londes' biggest beef is actually, though, television, which he claims has become a religion. His rant about television isn't particularly new or revolutionary, but it's just one part of Londes. And, considering the end, it becomes a facet of a complex case.

You see, Dr Londes isn't "real." That is, he is not a person. He never was. Dr. Londes is the creation, or dream, of a 15 year old boy in a constant vegetative state for two years after a medical accident, a former hacker who was hooked up to a brain reading device much like the aforementioned video game. He then used this to create Dr. Londes and put forth his ideals through the creation of SCRATCH.

Dr. Londes is eventually "shut down," screaming for life, ironically, as his existence is erased.

Session 23 ends up being an incredible mix of religion, technology, mortality, self-doubt, and some good old fashioned soul searching. It evolves Bebop, for a moment, into a much more reflective, introspective show.

Session 24 is radically different and yet eerily similar. It once again forgoes action, but packs much more of an emotional punch. And that's it. Really. Faye Valentine begins to wonder where she belongs. As Call Me, Call Me blazed out from my speakers, I felt a deep sadness well up in me when Spike and Jet looked on at Ed's "Bye Bye" message. Ed is one of my favorite characters of all time; a goofy, original antidote to sexualization and stereotypes, a tomboyish girl, sometimes a boy, with a flair for technology and hacking. Her leaving begins the somersault of emotions that is the conclusion of Cowboy Bebop.

See you cowgirl, someday, somewhere.

Sadly, we might never again.